Russell Brand (1 Viewer)

[shmmeee]

For consent?
I think I was just trying to highlight the jumbled up nature of the laws. In terms of child protection I think the CAs specify 16/17 year olds are still children.

Oh no, for age of majority sorry.

16/17 year olds are children in the eyes of the law. That they get some benefits younger kids don’t get is irrelevant. Age of criminal responsibility is 10. You can open a bank account at 11. You can be electronically tagged at 12. You can work at 13. You can go to gigs at 14. etc etc

 

[Grendel]

It won’t stop youngsters that fool around with each other, but if it protects youngsters from preying adults that are much older than them then maybe it’s worth exploring.

Its an odd thing really

When I was 19 I was working away from Uni for a while and I ended up in this "relationship" with a woman at work

She was not massively older - probably 8 - 10 years and married

However, it became obvious from the start she clearly was a bit disturbed. I tried to end it and then a chain of reasons came out to stop me. Either pity or threats. So she'd kill herself, she'd tell her husband, she'd tell people I forced her etc

So it carried on. She would buy presents then attack me it was not great.

I was on my own there and it was just not a pleasant experience. Then she announced that she was leaving her husband and getting her own place and that she had arranged for me to get a full time job there and quit uni

Honestly I just would have done it but someone at work finally stepped in and helped me put a stop to it

So if a 19 year old man get get coerced and targeted it seems insane that a young girl can make a sound judgement

The absurdity of all this is highlighted when a year later I had a same sex relationship with someone and I guess I was 21 and he was 20 at some point in that which I guess at the time meant I was having sex with a minor which was utterly ridiculous.

 

[napolimp]

Its an odd thing really

When I was 19 I was working away from Uni for a while and I ended up in this "relationship" with a woman at work

She was not massively older - probably 8 - 10 years and married

However, it became obvious from the start she clearly was a bit disturbed. I tried to end it and then a chain of reasons came out to stop me. Either pity or threats. So she'd kill herself, she'd tell her husband, she'd tell people I forced her etc

So it carried on. She would buy presents then attack me it was not great.

I was on my own there and it was just not a pleasant experience. Then she announced that she was leaving her husband and getting her own place and that she had arranged for me to get a full time job there and quit uni

Honestly I just would have done it but someone at work finally stepped in and helped me put a stop to it

So if a 19 year old man get get coerced and targeted it seems insane that a young girl can make a sound judgement

The absurdity of all this is highlighted when a year later I had a same sex relationship with someone and I guess I was 21 and he was 20 at some point in that which I guess at the time meant I was having sex with a minor which was utterly ridiculous.

Fair play for sharing.

 

[hamertime]

Looks like this guy is the next in line to be cancelled by society. As it currently stands there has been a 4 year investigation in to him and apparently all they have is 4 unnamed witnesses who wish to remain anonymous but the witch hunt is well and truly on.

 

[napolimp]

Looks like this guy is the next in line to be cancelled by society. As it currently stands there has been a 4 year investigation in to him and apparently all they have is 4 unnamed witnesses who wish to remain anonymous but the witch hunt is well and truly on.

 

[skybluetony176]

Isn’t cancelled an overused and misused term. If people, institutions, sponsors etc don’t want to be associated with someone whether the reason is they’re a talentless grifter or of questionable character (both apply here) then surely in a truly free society that is their choice. Unless ironically you want to cancel their free choice. What are you expecting exactly? A forced showing of Russel Brand on TV? People marched at gunpoint to a ticket office to buy tickets for his shows then marched to their seats? We don’t live in Russia or North Korea. Companies have a free choice of who they want to be associated with, media has a choice on who they promote and journalists have freedom to investigate people with a public persona regardless of how much you agree with them. Some people need to grow up.

 

[Grendel]

Isn’t cancelled an overused and misused term. If people, institutions, sponsors etc don’t want to be associated with someone whether the reason is they’re a talentless grifter or of questionable character (both apply here) then surely in a truly free society that is their choice. Unless ironically you want to cancel their free choice. What are you expecting exactly? A forced showing of Russel Brand on TV? People marched at gunpoint to a ticket office to buy tickets for his shows then marched to their seats? We don’t live in Russia or North Korea. Companies have a free choice of who they want to be associated with, media has a choice on who they promote and journalists have freedom to investigate people with a public persona regardless of how much you agree with them. Some people need to grow up.

What on earth are you droning on about Tony

 

[hamertime]

Isn’t cancelled an overused and misused term. If people, institutions, sponsors etc don’t want to be associated with someone whether the reason is they’re a talentless grifter or of questionable character (both apply here) then surely in a truly free society that is their choice. Unless ironically you want to cancel their free choice. What are you expecting exactly? A forced showing of Russel Brand on TV? People marched at gunpoint to a ticket office to buy tickets for his shows then marched to their seats? We don’t live in Russia or North Korea. Companies have a free choice of who they want to be associated with, media has a choice on who they promote and journalists have freedom to investigate people with a public persona regardless of how much you agree with them. Some people need to grow up.

I’ve never liked brand, but that is irrelevant. Anyway what I’m uncomfortable with is this new trend of people jumping on the bandwagon because it’s fashionable or popular to hate someone because of the supposed crimes that have not yet been proven. It’s like we are being dragged back 350 years when it was popular to hang witches because of the mob rule.

The problem now it’s trial by media and social media. People should be careful what they cheer for because one day it might be them.

 

[David O'Day]

I’ve never liked brand, but that is irrelevant. Anyway what I’m uncomfortable with is this new trend of people jumping on the bandwagon because it’s fashionable or popular to hate someone because of the supposed crimes that have not yet been proven. It’s like we are being dragged back 350 years when it was popular to hang witches because of the mob rule.

The problem now it’s trial by media and social media. People should be careful what they cheer for because one day it might be them.

Who's burner account was this again?

 

[hamertime]

Who's burner account was this again?

The creepy stalker is back

 

[Como]

I am going to wait and see what he is charged with.

 

[hamertime]

I am going to wait and see what he is charged with.

Or even prosecuted and found guilty with?

 

[David O'Day]

The creepy stalker is back

Russell Brand?

 

[hamertime]

Russell Brand?

You fit the profile

 

[David O'Day]

You fit the profile

Says the man defending Mason Greenwood and Russell Brand?

Ok mate

 

[hamertime]

Says the man defending Mason Greenwood and Russell Brand?

Ok mate

Look Derek, it doesn’t seem like your tiny brain can compute what I am saying. You are the part of the problem, you cannot compute that you have no idea what’s going on in these cases but you decided by what information has been put out to you by social media and the media that they must have committed the crimes. They may well have done what is accused, but what I’m saying is the public has no clue as to what’s going on in these cases but they believe they are all so intelligent and entitled that the accused should be cancelled without fair trial.

 

[David O'Day]

Look Derek, it doesn’t seem like your tiny brain can compute what I am saying. You are the part of the problem, you cannot compute that you have no idea what’s going on in these cases but you decided by what information has been put out to you by social media and the media that they must have committed the crimes. They may well have done what is accused, but what I’m saying is the public has no clue as to what’s going on in these cases but they believe they are all so intelligent and entitled that the accused should be cancelled without fair trial.

They are more intelligent that you K, still if the audio recording in the Greenwood case isn't enough or the fact other comedians were dropping hints about what Brand was like then I pity you. By your logic you think Saville was hard down by.

No wonder you use a burner account to post this shit

 

[hamertime]

They are more intelligent that you K, still if the audio recording in the Greenwood case isn't enough or the fact other comedians were dropping hints about what Brand was like then I pity you. By your logic you think Saville was hard down by.

No wonder you use a burner account to post this shit

Go and watch the film Idocracy, it’s you.

 

[David O'Day]

Go and watch the film Idocracy, it’s you.

You really didn't understand that film did you

 

[Otis]

It's a tricky one. There is no definitive answer I don't think. People should be allowed their day in court before everyone proclaims them guilty, but at the same time, if you had a venue and were about to stage a Russell Brand gig tonight and you hear that he's probably a rapist, how comfortable would you be with the gig going ahead?

It's not clear cut. I don't like to see anyone condemned without fair trial, but like with Mason Greenwood, would you want him playing for your club?

I honestly don't think there is a black and white answer.

 

[hamertime]

You really didn't understand that film did you

The problem with robots like you is you cannot think for yourself.

 

[David O'Day]

The problem with robots like you is you cannot think for yourself.

The film uses similar themes the Wells and Huxley, guess you didn't pick up on that.

You are this close to going into a full on "sheeple" rant.

 

[hamertime]

It's a tricky one. There is no definitive answer I don't think. People should be allowed their day in court before everyone proclaims them guilty, but at the same time, if you had a venue and were about to stage a Russell Brand gig tonight and you hear that he's probably a rapist, how comfortable would you be with the gig going ahead?

It's not clear cut. I don't like to see anyone condemned without fair trial, but like with Mason Greenwood, would you want him playing for your club?

I honestly don't think there is a black and white answer.

The problem now is any media company can do an investigation on somebody, publish it on tv and social media without that person even having a chance to respond. Immediately the lemmings jump on it and Condem, cancel and vilify that individual. That’s all I’m not comfortable with and society is going down a bad path with this.

 

[hamertime]

The film uses similar themes the Wells and Huxley, guess you didn't pick up on that.

You are this close to going into a full on "sheeple" rant.

I started reading that then completely zoned out

 

[David O'Day]

I started reading that then completely zoned out

well you are stupid so I expected that

 

[shmmeee]

The problem now is any media company can do an investigation on somebody, publish it on tv and social media without that person even having a chance to respond. Immediately the lemmings jump on it and Condem, cancel and vilify that individual. That’s all I’m not comfortable with and society is going down a bad path with this.

 

[SBT]

The problem now is any media company can do an investigation on somebody, publish it on tv and social media without that person even having a chance to respond.

Super easy

 

[SBAndy]

Super easy

It’s a good thing we don’t have defamation laws in this country isn’t it.

 

[shmmeee]

What an absolute scumbag. The fact he got to fuck Billie Piper is proof there’s no God.

 

[napolimp]

The problem now is any media company can do an investigation on somebody, publish it on tv and social media without that person even having a chance to respond. Immediately the lemmings jump on it and Condem, cancel and vilify that individual. That’s all I’m not comfortable with and society is going down a bad path with this.

I'm starting to get the feeling that you've done some really bad stuff in your life.

 

[Otis]

View attachment 31921

What an absolute scumbag. The fact he got to fuck Billie Piper is proof there’s no God.

What does that even mean?

 

[shmmeee]

What does that even mean?

He’s saying that calling someone racist or a rapist is just something you say as an insult and should be ignored basically.

 

[SBT]

What does that even mean?

It means that shmmeee’s belief system hinges on the absence of an interventionist god, who chooses to intervene primarily on the issue of who gets to shag Billie Piper

 

[shmmeee]

It means that shmmeee’s belief system hinges on the absence of an interventionist god, who chooses to intervene primarily on the issue of who gets to shag Billie Piper

Worthy of respect in a democratic society.

 

[duffer]

The problem now is any media company can do an investigation on somebody, publish it on tv and social media without that person even having a chance to respond. Immediately the lemmings jump on it and Condem, cancel and vilify that individual. That’s all I’m not comfortable with and society is going down a bad path with this.

Brand had a chance to respond. The journalists wrote to him and offered him exactly that. He could have been interviewed and offered his side of the story. Or he could have raised an injunction and tried to prevent broadcast/publication, or he could claim defamation and sue the arses off them.

So, he can have his day in court if he thinks it's all a bunch of lies.

In the meantime the facts as stated in the C4 programme seem to remain unchallenged, except by Brand to his followers on YouTube/Rumble, and it seems that there's no shortage of people who had concerns regarding his behaviour now coming forward.

My feeling is that famous and/or powerful men like Brand, Trump, Saville, Cosby, Weinstein, etc. have been getting away with this sort of shit for an awfully long time, because the people they prey on are inevitably in a much weaker position.

Having a press willing to investigate and expose their behaviour, as long as it's done properly and with supporting evidence, seems to me to be tipping the balance back in the right direction.